Link: Alabama adds The Citadel to 2018 Football Schedule

KrAzY3 said:

This is impossible! You can't level the playing field by making all out of conference schedules tougher! That's already been explained to you. Ironically, what you are arguing against is the only way to level the playing field. The other conferences must upgrade and the SEC must not upgrade and then and only then are things level. That's what you seem to be oblivious to. You also seem to be missing a lot from that 1978 season, like for instance the fact that Alabama has a nice long break after they played Nebraska, or before they played Auburn. Where do you fit those breaks into your imagined schedule? You can't!

The rest of your argument seems to be built on this naive notion of how things are. It's just not like that, and that's all there is to it.
An easier one, because they play in the Big 10.

Click to expand...

You have that now. Haven't we spoken ad nauseam about the relative difference in SOS conference?


For 2016, Ohio State and the big ten have agreed not to play anymore FCS teams. On top of that, they are strengthening their SOS schedule by going to 9 conference games. The big ten closed the SOS gap by mandatorily taking off one of their cupcakes. Give the big ten a ton of credit, they are proactive about changing some of this environment.

TUSKtimes said:

For 2016, Ohio State and the big ten have agreed not to play anymore FCS teams. On top of that, they are strengthening their SOS schedule by going to 9 conference games. The big ten closed the SOS gap by mandatorily taking off one of their cupcakes. Give the big ten a ton of credit, they are proactive about changing some of this environment.

Click to expand...

Really?

In 2015 Ohio State had the 60th SoS... guess how many FCS teams they played? 0, they played 0 FCS teams and had a lousy SoS because as I said before they played in the Big 10. And now you are seriously suggesting that adding Rutgers or something to their schedule is going to bridge the gap from 60 to 1? I've alluded before to people trying to make schedules like it is a game of Madden, but seriously I'm not sure you're in the same reality. For someone that actually argues SoS is important you are oddly forgiving when other conferences end up with a lousy SoS. It's like to you, a good opponent just means you recognize their name.

I've listed the math here before by the way. Essentially the SEC could schedule anyone, anyone as a ninth game and still play as tough or tougher 9 game slates as any other conference's 9 games. You just seem obvious to the numbers, they just don't seem to make any sense to you. You're buying into the entirely false narrative some created that just playing a conference game, or not playing an FCS game imbues that game/schedule with magical powers and that's just a load of crap.

There's no point in my going further with you here. If you think adding a single conference game makes up the massive gap, quite simply you are wrong.

Edit: I will add this, I know you are not saying anything new. But, you are contributing to a false narrative. For your sake I assume you just were fed misinformation and bought it, but there's just no substance to these types of arguments. The oh we don't play any more FCS teams, and oh we have a 9th conference game, as though those just make up for everything. It doesn't and it won't.

TUSKtimes said:

You have that now. Haven't we spoken ad nauseam about the relative difference in SOS conference?


For 2016, Ohio State and the big ten have agreed not to play anymore FCS teams. On top of that, they are strengthening their SOS schedule by going to 9 conference games. The big ten closed the SOS gap by mandatorily taking off one of their cupcakes. Give the big ten a ton of credit, they are proactive about changing some of this environment.

Click to expand...

uhh no. Michigan state is the only one that I can give some credit. Tosu had an agreement to play Ohio schools to fill their ooc schedule under tressell and 3 of them are fbs teams, and that deal has somewhat carried over as well. Also you fail to give MTSU and la Monroe the distinction as well. Yet our ooc schedule was harder than theirs last year because Charleston southern actually boosted ours. That was our lone fcs team.

KrAzY3 said:

Really?

In 2015 Ohio State had the 60th SoS... guess how many FCS teams they played? 0, they played 0 FCS teams and had a lousy SoS because as I said before they played in the Big 10. And now you are seriously suggesting that adding Rutgers or something to their schedule is going to bridge the gap from 60 to 1? I've alluded before to people trying to make schedules like it is a game of Madden, but seriously I'm not sure you're in the same reality. For someone that actually argues SoS is important you are oddly forgiving when other conferences end up with a lousy SoS. It's like to you, a good opponent just means you recognize their name.

I've listed the math here before by the way. Essentially the SEC could schedule anyone, anyone as a ninth game and still play as tough or tougher 9 game slates as any other conference's 9 games. You just seem obvious to the numbers, they just don't seem to make any sense to you. You're buying into the entirely false narrative some created that just playing a conference game, or not playing an FCS game imbues that game/schedule with magical powers and that's just a load of crap.
There's no point in my going further with you here. If you think adding a single conference game makes up the massive gap, quite simply you are wrong.

Click to expand...

Oh, I think you're right as far as what your point is and how long you want to hang with it. I will give any conference, any team, all the credit for having the courage to go the harder route. They got the better mouse trap. Given that the SEC will not schedule that 9th game, the gap has been closed.

TUSKtimes said:

You have that now. Haven't we spoken ad nauseam about the relative difference in SOS conference?


For 2016, Ohio State and the big ten have agreed not to play anymore FCS teams. On top of that, they are strengthening their SOS schedule by going to 9 conference games. The big ten closed the SOS gap by mandatorily taking off one of their cupcakes. Give the big ten a ton of credit, they are proactive about changing some of this environment.

Click to expand...

Did those numbers make any sense to you?

RTR91 said:

Did those numbers make any sense to you?

Click to expand...

You mean in your alternate universe?

I thought I would stay with what I see. It's easier to explain.

This reminds me of the song from RATT back in the 80's "Round and Round"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TUSKtimes said:

You mean in your alternate universe?

I thought I would stay with what I see. It's easier to explain.

Click to expand...

Well how do you see Hawaii, northern Illinois, western Michigan, and Vt because that is exactly what Ohio State's OOC was last year. Again our OOC last year trump theirs and we had a FCS team.

Plus let's say we do it the way you suggest and play an OOC with Oklahoma, TCU, USC, and Washington... Do you not figure those corner cutters on the plains wouldn't try to pull a schedule with ISU, Ohio, FIU, and ULL. Fact is we can't go to the 60s and 70s way of thinking because football has changed

TUSKtimes said:

You mean in your alternate universe?

I thought I would stay with what I see. It's easier to explain.

Click to expand...

My alternate universe is the numbers explaining what the majority of the country saw. You apparently saw something the rest of us didn't.

81usaf92 said:

Well how do you see Hawaii, northern Illinois, western Michigan, and Vt because that is exactly what Ohio State's OOC was last year. Again our OOC last year trump theirs and we had a FCS team.

Click to expand...

You do understand my discussion of SOS would apply to all teams in all major conferences having to play all power 5 teams? You do realize that is my entire argument? You do realize this, right?

So to answer your question, I didn't like it. Mickey mouse. Why I advocate all power 5 teams, all power 5 conferences, playing all power 5 teams.

That would be:
ACC
Big 10
SEC
Pac12
Big12
No more, no less.

TUSKtimes said:

You do understand my discussion of SOS would apply to all teams in all major conferences having to play all power 5 teams? You do realize that is my entire argument? You do realize this, right?

So to answer your question, I didn't like it. Mickey mouse. Why I advocate all power 5 teams, all power 5 conferences, playing all power 5 teams.

That would be:
ACC
Big 10
SEC
Pac12
Big12
No more, no less.

Click to expand...

But not all P5 conferences are the same. That's what we're saying.

Not to mention some P5 teams are worse than FCS teams.

TUSKtimes said:

You do understand my discussion of SOS would apply to all teams in all major conferences having to play all power 5 teams? You do realize that is my entire argument? You do realize this, right?

So to answer your question, I didn't like it. Mickey mouse. Why I advocate all power 5 teams, all power 5 conferences, playing all power 5 teams.

That would be:
ACC
Big 10
SEC
Pac12
Big12
No more, no less.

Click to expand...

You do realize there is no mathematical way to schedule all those teams, and plus teams close in caliber to NDSU are higher on the FPI than about 40% of the power 5 teams. Kansas is probably the worst team in the nation on any level, and guess what... THEY ARE A POWER 5 TEAM

RTR91 said:

But not all P5 conferences are the same. That's what we're saying.

Not to mention some P5 teams are worse than FCS teams.

Click to expand...

These conferences are not the same this very moment. We will continue to have the tougher road because we are in the tougher conference. This just happened to the SEC last season and the one before and the one before and the one before and the........................................................

TUSKtimes said:

These conferences are not the same this very moment. We will continue to have the tougher road because we are in the tougher conference. This just happened to the SEC last season and the one before and the one before and the one before and the........................................................

Click to expand...

Kansas would lose to over half of the fcs teams we played in the last 10 years, and ndsu would beat 50% of the power 5 teams. But yet Kansas is a power 5 and ndsu is a fcs. Which one is more of a challenge to Alabama?

Some of this use of numbers is perhaps based too much on hindsight. We have no way to know that a school like MTSU will or won't be ranked ahead of some other school when we schedule them 2+ years in advance. It's highly likely that an FCS school will be ranked ahead of some FBS team, but its also more like that an FBS team will be ranked ahead of a lot more FCS schools. On average over the long term we'd play better games if we scheduled FBS.

That doesn't settle the argument and I don't feel strongly about it, though all things being equal I'd rather see more quality less quantity if that's the tradeoff. Maybe drop two FCS schools, add another power 5, and add another bye week. I'd be okay with that.

LA4Bama said:

Some of this use of numbers is perhaps based too much on hindsight. We have no way to know that a school like MTSU will or won't be ranked ahead of some other school when we schedule them 2+ years in advance. It's highly likely that an FCS school will be ranked ahead of some FBS team, but its also more like that an FBS team will be ranked ahead of a lot more FCS schools. On average over the long term we'd play better games if we scheduled FBS.

That doesn't settle the argument and I don't feel strongly about it, though all things being equal I'd rather see more quality less quantity if that's the tradeoff. Maybe drop two FCS schools, add another power 5, and add another bye week. I'd be okay with that.

Click to expand...

I don't think Bama has ever played 2 FCS schools in a year.

BamaInBham said:

I don't think Bama has ever played 2 FCS schools in a year.

Click to expand...

That's cool -- my bad. The Citadel is though. MTSU isn't, but my point about hindsight still seems relevant even though I misapplied it. We will not know enough about relative strength two years out to really make a prudent decision. In a sense, that means neither side can really win an argument just based on a numbers. However, the adage "less is more" comes to mind here. For most purposes, non-P5 games are meaningless space fillers. It is the nature of meaningless things to be eliminated, so I'd prefer to let them go to their fate sooner than later.

LA4Bama said:

Some of this use of numbers is perhaps based too much on hindsight. We have no way to know that a school like MTSU will or won't be ranked ahead of some other school when we schedule them 2+ years in advance. It's highly likely that an FCS school will be ranked ahead of some FBS team, but its also more like that an FBS team will be ranked ahead of a lot more FCS schools. On average over the long term we'd play better games if we scheduled FBS.

That doesn't settle the argument and I don't feel strongly about it, though all things being equal I'd rather see more quality less quantity if that's the tradeoff. Maybe drop two FCS schools, add another power 5, and add another bye week. I'd be okay with that.

Click to expand...

Ok... We can go with preseason polls instead of end of the season. Know how that'll come out, right?

RTR91 said:

Ok... We can go with preseason polls instead of end of the season. Know how that'll come out, right?

Click to expand...

I'm just guessing our schedule is still tougher with 1 fcs team than tosu.